Template talk:Infobox enemy (ME2)
Is there a reason the infobox list shields and barrier? They are the same thing. --silverstrike 15:02, March 9, 2010 (UTC) : From the standpoint of someone looking for info on outfitting powers to their character, it is important to know whether they are dealing with biotic barriers or shields. They may choose Warp Ammo vs Disruptor Ammo for instance or they may choose Energy Drain vs Reave. I do get what you're saying, because on the topic of weapons, I had been contemplating merging the two e.g. +50% bonus vs Shields/Barriers, because weapons don't differentiate. If the two are merged on the Adversaries box, it could be just Barriers because that could mean both Kinetic Barrier or Biotic Barrier, and if people wished to know which specifically, they would look above to see the Barrier icon (or lackof). The only drawback is that it might be slightly more confusing, e.g. if there is no Barrier icon, does that mean someone just forgot to put it in, or does it really mean it's a Kinetic Barrier. The advantage is that it removes a pointless field. Dch2404 18:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC) :: i guess the main reason for the differentiation is when you mouse over your enemy, it will either say Barriers in purple, Shields in blue, Armor in orange or Health in red. Dch2404 19:02, March 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I see your point, but if their both the same no need for two parameters. If we had enough width to write kinetic barrier, then that would of solved the issue. Maybe we should post the question on the Biotics article talk page to receive more input. --silverstrike 19:09, March 9, 2010 (UTC) I think it's just easiest to have the empty parameter collapse and disappear if it's not used, same with armour and health. or health should maybe stay. Not sure how to do this though. Dch2404 08:36, March 10, 2010 (UTC) :Hiding empty parameters is easy, but can cause confusion - why in one case were using shields and in another Barriers. I actually think that keeping empty parameters indicates that the information is missing, collapsing them can confuse. --silverstrike 10:13, March 10, 2010 (UTC) :: Yes that's true, some tables still need to be filled. We'll leave out collapsing, but it may be a viable option in the future. I do think that it is best to leave the table as it is for now. I mean, here are three scenarios we want to avoid: :: (1). We decide everything has 'Barriers'. Someone goes into the YMIR Mech page and sees that it has 'Barriers'. He goes into the talk page to dispute this, that YMIR Mech has 'Shields'. We explain that technically there is no difference between shields and barriers from the codex, but there is a functional difference during gameplay. Repeat for every enemy with shields. :: (2) As above, everything has 'Shields', someone goes into the Eclipse Commando page... and so forth... :: (3) Resize the column to fit 'Barriers/Shields', someone goes into a page and asks, "I noticed this enemy has Shields/Barriers, which is it?" This is probably the least likely to happen, but it still kind of defeats the purpose of an infobox. :: Dch2404 12:02, March 10, 2010 (UTC) :::In other words "damn if you do and damn if you don't". We can a notice to the template (similar to the notice on the template regarding the before/after collector mission) or leave them both, but use only one parameter (the }/ } parameter will show the same stat for shields and barrier rows). --silverstrike 12:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Hmmm... not sure about that, if it's all about clarity of information, then it doesn't get more clearer than its current state of separate Barriers and Shields parameters. I really do think it should just remain as how it functions in-game rather than trying to re-educate people that barriers are shields, and that shields are barriers. I think it's a lost cause. I'm still in favour of collapsing after some time has elapsed, but maybe someone else will offer input in the meantime as well... Dch2404 17:59, March 10, 2010 (UTC) :The game don't show shields/barrier when the target (or Shepard) has none. Showing both is misleading - especially when one set to none. Perhaps we should ask the question on the forums or on the Biotics talk page. --silverstrike 18:26, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Sorry for resurrecting this discussion. I think the empty columns should be collapsed. When there's an entry that's empty, it looks like the information is just missing, rather than "None". Is there still opposition to collapsing the empty info columns? Dammej 23:54, June 19, 2010 (UTC)